Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Delrick53

What Do Atheists Read For Pleasure ?

I probably spend too much time reading about religion and the history of religion (and that REALLY annoys some believers), and because reading is pretty much all I can do these days, I read 4/5 books a week.

I have noticed that many atheists/secular humanists read sci-fi, and I'm a sucker for a good psychological thriller.

King and Koontz are other favourites, and I started King's latest (Under The Dome) 890 page tome yesterday and will finish it tomorrow.

Am I right to suspect that those of us who don't believe in the supernatural/fantasy read books of that genre more than most ?

Is it significant that fantasy novels like the 'Left Behind' series, are believed by Rapturists and used as 'theological evidence' because they simply can't tell the difference between fantasy and fact ?
trentvoyager

Hmmm....interesting point.

I certainly read my fair share of horror/sf - but I am totally addicted to Reginald Hill's books - Dalziel and Pascoe and the Joe Sixsmith series. Plus regularly revisit any of Dickens novels at the drop of a hat.
Tom Cruising

Stephen King is the best story teller out there. For me anyway. His style hooks me in every single time near enough.

Just finishing the second of two books from a Swedish horror writer 'Let the right one in' and 'Handling the Undead'.

I've done my fair share of crime/thrillers over the last couple of years and think I am bored of them now.

I never read anything religious - nearest I've come is 'This thing of Darkness' by Harry Thompson - which was my favourite book of 2008 by a country mile.

I get coerced into reading my sons books too so I've been reading Gone, Skullduggery Pleasant and obviously Harry Potter - all of which are fantastic for kids that like books.

I'm on to obscure books now - 'A fraction of the whole' by some Aussie - Steve something.....can't remember but it was a great read.

I'll be starting another unobvious book this weekend - I'll report back if it's worth recommending or avoiding.
Shaker

I'm a pathologically voracious book collector and reader. I've just started to get into sci-fi and fantasy in a serious way within the last few years, but I've always enjoyed horror - I'll add my voice to the chorus of praise for Stephen King (at his best), but will add our own home-grown James Herbert as well, whose books I started to read when I was just a kid.

Otherwise I have a particular love for biographies, history, popular science, poetry ... most things, really.
Delrick53

admin. wrote:
I'm a pathologically voracious book collector and reader. I've just started to get into sci-fi and fantasy in a serious way within the last few years, but I've always enjoyed horror - I'll add my voice to the chorus of praise for Stephen King (at his best), but will add our own home-grown James Herbert as well, whose books I started to read when I was just a kid.

Otherwise I have a particular love for biographies, history, popular science, poetry ... most things, really.



I'm already getting the impression that non-believers read more (and very diverse) books than  aT, Sparky, Perse, and a few dozen others.
I wonder if they encourage their children to read ?

I know one Fundy couple who controlled their daughters reading in a way that would have made Stalin jealous.

In the new Stephen King, the real baddies are ......... Born Again Christian Fundamentalists - and some of the the dialogue could have been borrowed from the BBC MBs !
Shaker

Stephen King's daughter Naomi is a lesbian Unitarian minister, by the way.
LornaDoone40

Quote:
I'm already getting the impression that non-believers read more (and very diverse) books than  aT, Sparky, Perse, and a few dozen others.


'Scuse me...  *ahem*  d'you mind not trying to make a point on the basis of what a minority of fanatics do please?

Cheers!

T8-eh-T8

I know I'm not an atheist, but when I was a young whipper=snapper I used to read Stephen King etc. Loved Clive Barker, Anne Rice, Poppy Z Brite, not so much James Herbert or Dean Koontz.

I changed into regular fiction, Chris Brookmyre, Ian Banks, Will Self, Irvine Welsh, in fact whatever was on the go at the time.

Now I hardly read at all. I used to be compulsive, but I can't remember the last fiction I read. I still enjoy Karen Armstrong of course. And having read Henry Chadwicks part one of the penguin/pelican history of Christianity I ordered the remaining five, by different authors, and have to work my way through them. Thanks to Delrick for that steer.

I find that the bath is the only place I get the peace to read these days.
Pukon_the_Treen

Oooh! Clive Barker! Far better than Stephen King or James Herbert.  As for Dean Koontz, nuff said; real penny dreadfuls.
T8-eh-T8

Candyman






Candyman






Candym............
Samuel Vimes

T8-eh-T8 wrote:
Candyman






Candyman






Candym............



Give me Imajica any day.

Sublime.  
Pukon_the_Treen

Yes, I like the ones that unite fantasy and horror too; Cabal, Weaveworld and the Abarat series are all excellent.
Pukon_the_Treen

On the subject of horror, just a little image that cheered me up:

northernstar

I like thrillers and action,  just pulp fiction really! Jonathan and Faye Kellerman, Robert B Parker's Spenser novels, Robert Crais, James Patterson, Andrew Gross, John Connolly, Michael Connelly, John Sandford, G M Ford, Robert K Tannenbaum, Clive Cussler, the list is endless! Sorry, not into the so called classics!!
Silver

I like anything that uses imagination. Many people in science have got the imagination of a lump of coal so stick rigidly with what they know. I also like fantasy and am going through the Xanth books again.

I do find now that I am more critical than I used to be and cannot casually accept what I know or believe (as in speculative science) to be wrong, even if it is fiction. Or fact. I do read some science still but more news than text books.

I do read some books about religion but have found that if I make a detailed post to start a thread explaining why something in christianity is wrong, instead of getting answers, I end up with cretins just dismissing it with silly remarks as they have no answers.
Delrick53

northernstar wrote:
I like thrillers and action,  just pulp fiction really! Jonathan and Faye Kellerman, Robert B Parker's Spenser novels, Robert Crais, James Patterson, Andrew Gross, John Connolly, Michael Connelly, John Sandford, G M Ford, Robert K Tannenbaum, Clive Cussler, the list is endless! Sorry, not into the so called classics!!


N-Star

All good, but I'm starting to favour UK authors more these days, and anyone who criticises those of us who enjoy popular fiction - be it sci-fi - psycho thrillers or anything else - is a Bookerist/elitist, and don't know what fun is.

Finished the new King monster last night, and was very impressed. I know about his family clergy, and one of the heroes is a moderate and doubting lady minister. The other 'heroes are, as always, a mixed bunch of fairly ordinary people, meaning that any one of us can imagine ourselves in their situation - and King knows this !
Delrick53

LornaDoone40 wrote:
Quote:
I'm already getting the impression that non-believers read more (and very diverse) books than  aT, Sparky, Perse, and a few dozen others.


'Scuse me...  *ahem*  d'you mind not trying to make a point on the basis of what a minority of fanatics do please?

Cheers!



Sorry Lorna,

But both here and at the Beeb moderate (normal ?) Christians are in a minority. One of my good friends is a CoS minister - he loves sci-fi and thrillers about serial killers. So he's one of the good guys when it comes to literature. He's also terrified of fundys, and reads as much about them as I do.
He also knows that those who attend our local fundy church only read the Bible or books written by other fundys, and they control what their kids read - if it's not pro evangelist - it's not allowed.

Those are the people I'm talking about here, not you or 88, but I'm curious about what non-believers read, and as I suspected, it's leaning towards fantasy/sci-fi/supernatural stuff.

Other non-believers at the Beeb (but not here - yet) are the same, and I believe that shows that we have a much better imagination than the fundys, yet they actually believe in fantasy, and I can't work that one out.
Delrick53

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Oooh! Clive Barker! Far better than Stephen King or James Herbert.  As for Dean Koontz, nuff said; real penny dreadfuls.



Pukon,

I think that's a bit unfair.

His 'Odd Thomas' series and the 'Frankenstein' trilogy are excellent, and Ive read many of his novels in two sittings.

Perhaps you're more elitist that you thought ?
Pukon_the_Treen

Maybe. I've not read any of his books for years. Perhaps he's got better.
T8-eh-T8

I'm sure it was a Koontz offering from back in the day where I read an American detective character on a visit to London for some investigation, say to his accomplice, about how he could speak cockney rhyming slang and so lead the questioning.

What followed was the most toe curling, van Dykesque, cringe-worthy piece of prose it has ever been my misfortune to read.

I felt personally insulted that the author felt so little regard for me that he would present this drivel as something he felt I would want to read.

If it wasn't Koontz then I apologise to the ether.

If it was him then he has one too many 'o's in his name.
Delrick53

T8-eh-T8 wrote:
I'm sure it was a Koontz offering from back in the day where I read an American detective character on a visit to London for some investigation, say to his accomplice, about how he could speak cockney rhyming slang and so lead the questioning.

What followed was the most toe curling, van Dykesque, cringe-worthy piece of prose it has ever been my misfortune to read.

I felt personally insulted that the author felt so little regard for me that he would present this drivel as something he felt I would want to read.

If it wasn't Koontz then I apologise to the ether.

If it was him then he has one too many 'o's in his name.



88,

Sounds more like Dean Coonts, than Koontz.

The latter is definitely hard core fantasy/sci-fi/mystery, usually with a 'sprirtually sensitive' heroic golden retriever thrown in at some stage.
T8-eh-T8

Anybody read the Twilight series by Stephanie Meyer?

My sister has read the books, me and Mrs T8 watched the first film this weekend and my sister and Mrs T8 saw the second film at the flicks last night.

I has not heard of it but apparently it is a phenomenon amongst the youngsters, particularly young womens of the opposite sex types.
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
Anybody read the Twilight series by Stephanie Meyer?


They make me angry with rage!

The whole thing is just a clumsy and glaringly obvious metaphor for her Mormon celibacy propaganda. For that simple reason she has transformed vampires into these vapid angsty emos. Anne Rice was bad enough, but at least those vampires had some balls; these neutered prepubescent vampires are a disgrace!
Delrick53

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
Anybody read the Twilight series by Stephanie Meyer?


They make me angry with rage!

The whole thing is just a clumsy and glaringly obvious metaphor for her Mormon celibacy propaganda. For that simple reason she has transformed vampires into these vapid angsty emos. Anne Rice was bad enough, but at least those vampires had some balls; these neutered prepubescent vampires are a disgrace!


The 'Twilight' series came up when I was away for the weekend with my daughters, and they both agree with you.
My youngest in particular was shocked to see how many (usually female) undergrads are walking around campus carrying one of these books, and these are obviously smart kids !
Delrick53

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
Anybody read the Twilight series by Stephanie Meyer?


They make me angry with rage!

The whole thing is just a clumsy and glaringly obvious metaphor for her Mormon celibacy propaganda. For that simple reason she has transformed vampires into these vapid angsty emos. Anne Rice was bad enough, but at least those vampires had some balls; these neutered prepubescent vampires are a disgrace!


Pukon,

I Googled 'Mormon celibacy propaganda' and found this :

http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/battlestar-mormonica.htm

Seems to be a man after your own heart, and he made me smile too (doesn't happen very often !)
Delrick53

I've just finished Greg Bear's 'Quantico' (recommended by Dave_B at the other place) and enjoyed it.

Lot's scientifiky DNA bioterror gadgetry type stuff, with 'we can rebuild him' type medicine, and a serious blast at religous fundys and White House secret BlackOps stuff.

Really enjoyed it and have ordered another couple.

Has anyone read some of his books ?
Samuel Vimes

Delrick53 wrote:
I've just finished Greg Bear's 'Quantico' (recommended by Dave_B at the other place) and enjoyed it.

Lot's scientifiky DNA bioterror gadgetry type stuff, with 'we can rebuild him' type medicine, and a serious blast at religous fundys and White House secret BlackOps stuff.

Really enjoyed it and have ordered another couple.

Has anyone read some of his books ?


I have only ever read Eon. It's excellent though. Full of awesome ideas about the future of humanity and the nature of "self" in that future.
Delrick53

Samuel Vimes wrote:
Delrick53 wrote:
I've just finished Greg Bear's 'Quantico' (recommended by Dave_B at the other place) and enjoyed it.

Lot's scientifiky DNA bioterror gadgetry type stuff, with 'we can rebuild him' type medicine, and a serious blast at religous fundys and White House secret BlackOps stuff.

Really enjoyed it and have ordered another couple.

Has anyone read some of his books ?


I have only ever read Eon. It's excellent though. Full of awesome ideas about the future of humanity and the nature of "self" in that future.



It's on the wish list for Yule-Tide prezzies.

Dave did suggest keeping a couple of scientifiky dictionary-type tomes handy while reading the two 'Darwin' books.
Dave B

Delrick53 wrote:
I've just finished Greg Bear's 'Quantico' (recommended by Dave_B at the other place) and enjoyed it.

Lot's scientifiky DNA bioterror gadgetry type stuff, with 'we can rebuild him' type medicine, and a serious blast at religous fundys and White House secret BlackOps stuff.

Really enjoyed it and have ordered another couple.

Has anyone read some of his books ?


Hi Delrick!

Reading "Blood Music" now.

A genetics engineer develops "intelligent" lymphocytes from his own blood then injects them back in when he gets sacked. They talk to him and modify his body. Then they spread . . .

The others ("Quantico" and the "Darwin's . . ." duo) stretch science a bit - this one gives it a damn good twang into the bargain!  

I read a couple of Bear's other titles some years ago, will have to revisit them. I like an author who does at least enough research to keep things believable - even if not actually possible.
Delrick53

Dave B wrote:
Delrick53 wrote:
I've just finished Greg Bear's 'Quantico' (recommended by Dave_B at the other place) and enjoyed it.

Lot's scientifiky DNA bioterror gadgetry type stuff, with 'we can rebuild him' type medicine, and a serious blast at religous fundys and White House secret BlackOps stuff.

Really enjoyed it and have ordered another couple.

Has anyone read some of his books ?


Hi Delrick!

Reading "Blood Music" now.

A genetics engineer develops "intelligent" lymphocytes from his own blood then injects them back in when he gets sacked. They talk to him and modify his body. Then they spread . . .

The others ("Quantico" and the "Darwin's . . ." duo) stretch science a bit - this one gives it a damn good twang into the bargain!  

I read a couple of Bear's other titles some years ago, will have to revisit them. I like an author who does at least enough research to keep things believable - even if not actually possible.


Hi Dave,

I've just finished the first 100 pages of 'Darwin's Radio', and you're right about the science !
I'm just about managing to keep up (with frequent visits to some net sites)  - I had two nieces who died in their mid teens because of an inherited genetic condition.
My sister didn't have the net, but wanted ALL the information there was, and I duly obliged.
Some of the stuff must have sunk in !

The dates fit - she wanted the info in the second half of the 90's/early noughties, when Bear was writing the 'Darwin's' books.

We all know that sci-fi and related stuff can be predictive, but has anyone looked at how accurate the authors are, or have been ?

Today there are hundreds of authors who use their 'real' careers for their fiction - Kellerman, Cornwell, Riechs, Creighton, Grisham, and many more.

Does the same apply to sci-fi ?

I know that Hoyle wrote at least one sci-fi novel, but what about the others ?

I've added 'Blood Music' to the list.
Dave B

Delrick53 wrote:

Hi Dave,

I've just finished the first 100 pages of 'Darwin's Radio', and you're right about the science !
I'm just about managing to keep up (with frequent visits to some net sites)  - I had two nieces who died in their mid teens because of an inherited genetic condition.
My sister didn't have the net, but wanted ALL the information there was, and I duly obliged.
Some of the stuff must have sunk in !

The dates fit - she wanted the info in the second half of the 90's/early noughties, when Bear was writing the 'Darwin's' books.

We all know that sci-fi and related stuff can be predictive, but has anyone looked at how accurate the authors are, or have been ?

Today there are hundreds of authors who use their 'real' careers for their fiction - Kellerman, Cornwell, Riechs, Creighton, Grisham, and many more.

Does the same apply to sci-fi ?

I know that Hoyle wrote at least one sci-fi novel, but what about the others ?

I've added 'Blood Music' to the list.


'Morning Delrick

Not sure how much his career in biochemistry influenced his writings but Isaac Asimov was pretty prolific as a sci-fi writer (the "Foundation" series is classic). Yeah, Fred Hoyle wrote "The Black Cloud" (with his son if I remember correctly) and others, including co-authoring "A for Andromeda" which has been made and remade for TV.

I keep meaning to go over the early (1950s) "Foundation" novels since I am convinced Asimov thought up several technologies now taken for granted (the CD or DVD, digital PDAs, voice to text amongst them.)

It must be great for those with the imaginative drive to be able to play "what if" with a field they know well!

I do remember reading an article, many years ago, that listed some of the instances where fiction had sparked off ideas that turned into fact, and where words coined in fiction had come into common usage. Sci-fi scored quite highly I seem to remember - but that might just be bias!  

"Blood Music" has a some genetic jargon in it at the beginning but by no means as much as even "Quantico". Though I am only half way through! It is developing into something more like a post apocalypse novel, with a girl who is obviously intellectually challenged as one of the "heroes". Though I have this feeling that I know what will happen to her . . .

The problem is with reading a library load of the same genre over almost sixty years means that you get a bit too accurate in your predictions - though Bear is managing to surprise me quite often. I had read some of his books before but he did not "hit" me quite so hard then. But I also read the first three books of the "Foundation" series several times, now I find the language very old fashioned.
Delrick53

Evening Dave,

Definitely the same with many thriller writers - they can become so predictable.

Ive already mentioned King's latest, and it wasn't predictable in any way, with many of the 'heroes' (the ones we want to live) dropping like flies !

Koontz does the same in many of his, and invariably the only guaranteed survivor is the usually present golden retriever.

Getting back to 'real' sci-fi, if a few of us went back in time, even to the start of the 20th century, each carrying a box of 'goodies' that would operate at that time, and with minds full of ideas, we'd either be seen as geniuses (and become very rich), the Anti-Christ and his team, or certifiably insane.
300 years and we'd all burn !

At least today we can look at sci-fi and know that what is classified as fiction today could well become fact in the future - the most recent New Scientist I've got, and the article about 'dark power' is typical.
It all sounds impossible to me, but not to the physicists and their theories.

So do the real religious believers, the ones that believe in angels and demons, prayer and the miracles, but don't fit the 'fundy' profile, read sci-fi/fantasy ?

If not, why not ?
Lexilogio

I adore Sci fi.

And I'm a fan of religious based ones.
Walter Miller - Canticle for Leibowitz was wonderful, as was Doria Sparrows trilogy about the Jesuits involvement in being the first to visit another planet.

I'm always open to new sci fi recommendations. I enjoy fantasy, but not the battle ones. Three David Gemmel books are quite enough to enable me to probably write the rest (aged hero comes out of retirement for completely hopeless scenario.....)

I love hard sci fi, but find the writing often doesn't quite match up to the science.
Farmer Geddon

I like Bernard Cornwell's Saxon, Arthur and Grail Quest Books/Stories...

Couldn't get into his Sharpe character/stories though....
Delrick53

Lexilogio wrote:
I adore Sci fi.

And I'm a fan of religious based ones.
Walter Miller - Canticle for Leibowitz was wonderful, as was Doria Sparrows trilogy about the Jesuits involvement in being the first to visit another planet.

I'm always open to new sci fi recommendations. I enjoy fantasy, but not the battle ones. Three David Gemmel books are quite enough to enable me to probably write the rest (aged hero comes out of retirement for completely hopeless scenario.....)

I love hard sci fi, but find the writing often doesn't quite match up to the science.


It's not pure Sci-Fi, but the most recent Koontz I've read - 'From The Corner of his Eye' is a cracker. All the 'goodies' are very Christian, but the good way. Three (sister and twin brothers) come from a fundy Baptist family where the father taught scripture to his children with his fists and a few weapons. The twins end up with serious (but harmless) personality disorders, and the sister becomes a pillar of the community who works tirelessly to help others. They all hate their father, but that's a very small part of the narrative.

There's even a brilliant homicide detective who's 'on leave' from his real job - a Catholic Priest !

The characters are fantastic, and with the exception of the evil rapist/psychopath, they're all Christians.

The sci-fi relates to quantum physics/parallel worlds, and is taken from a famous theory (can't remember the physicists name) : "Everything that can be , is", - the infinite universes thing.

There's a definite feelgood factor, and I think I smiled through the last 40-50 pages.

How does the little boy stay dry in the rain ?

"Because it isn't raining everywhere I am".

Dave's got me reading Greg Bear, and I'd recommend him too.
Delrick53

Lucifers Duck wrote:
I like Bernard Cornwell's Saxon, Arthur and Grail Quest Books/Stories...

Couldn't get into his Sharpe character/stories though....



LD,

Have you tried the Manda Scott 'Boudica' series ?
Dave B

'Morning Delrick,

I tried reading King but did not find them as "satisfying" as pure s-f. I was a bit off fantasy once as well, but found a few that at least tried to offer a scientific basis for the magic, one has to suspend one's beliefs but not so high that they are out of sight!

Yeah, going back to 1700 with a solar powered calculaltor or a wind up torch might get one accused of being in league with the Devil I think!  Though I think that, even then, one might find some early scientist that would look at the evidence from a more objective point of view.

With regards to the propulsion systems in the NS that was interesting, but largely imaginative I think. Firstly how can we catch hold of and manipulate something (dark matter) that I understand is presently only a mathematical entity! But it is interesting to see such ideas, means that there are open minds out there still.

I wrote to a local paper, years ago, defending s-f after a columnist was very scathing about it. (Also partly because that same columnist had, verbatim, plagiarised an article (on local archaeology) I sent to the paper, taking all the credit for it.

My main argument was that all fiction is basically fantasy, if based on fact. Most people would go mad confronted with the lives that some  fictional characters supposedly live, some sad people still want to live in the Mills and Boon world after they shut the book. Science-fiction is mostly honest fantasy, once we shut the book we are back in the real world. It is far enough detached from reality as to not intrude. Then I thought of the "social future fiction", the dysfunctional worlds of a few decades time . . .

One note about "Blood Music". Certain anachronistic events in it caused me to check the publication date, 1985, that made it even more surprising
in terms of the subject matter!

As for historical novels: the closer they pretend to be to historical people and events the less I tend to read them. It is the "honest fantasy" again. The story of a "lesser" person, accurately researched and not shorn of the nasty bits that life in olden days was probably full of, is one thing. Portraying known historical characters or "cleaning it up" to suit modern tastes is another.

Edward Rutherfurd's book are pretty good I think and, being made up of a series of short novellas, in effect, makes them excellent holiday, travel or hospital waiting room reading.  :-)
Delrick53

Dave,

The 'historical novel' is interesting.

I've never enjoyed the Victorian fantasies that show everyone
as being overdressed middle or upper class, sexually repressed, and CoE.
And the TV costume dramas are even worse (not that you'd know, of course).

But there are some that use real history, and if anything, the fiction actually makes it more believable.

There is one, written by Kate Mosse ('Labyrinthe'), that took the history surrounding the Albigensian Crusade (the Cathars), and skillfully wove the crusade and modern scholarship/conspriacies together in a narrative that flitted between the 14th and 20th centuries.

I knew the history, and I knew the conspiracies, and the book worked.

Kings new one (The Dome) is as good as 'The Stand', and it too includes the 'multiple universe/quantum physics' theories some sci-fi/fantasy authors use today, but unless you know something about these things, the reader could struggle with the concept of an ultra super-intelligence that isn't a religious deity  (no-one here will !).

It's also an examination of what would happen if religious fundamentalism gains the upper hand in a small, completely isolated community - there's no doubting King's message, but like Koontz, he has most of the good guys as decent, moderate Christians (including a female minister who has 'doubts'), so I think 'normal' Christians would enjoy it.
Dave B

I will have to take another look at King (this is Steven King we are talking about?
Dave B

POSSIBLE VIRUS ALERT

My virus system gives a BIG red light to the advert for "speeding up your PC" that displayed on the last post!
Dave B

Dave B wrote:
I will have to take another look at King (this is Steven King we are talking about?
Just checked Amazon, is this "Under the Dome" we are talking about?
Delrick53

Dave B wrote:
Dave B wrote:
I will have to take another look at King (this is Steven King we are talking about?
Just checked Amazon, is this "Under the Dome" we are talking about?



That's the one.

I'm still enjoying 'Darwins Radio', but I wish I'd spotted the biology 101 and  glossary at the back earlier.

I'm still having to read it slowly, and re-read certain sections, but it's a bit of a cracker, and thought provoking too ( we all need some of that occasionally).

I think I'll be moving straight on to 'Darwins Children' when I've finished.
Lexilogio

I've read a couple of the Edward Rutherford books, and enjoyed them, although I'm not usually a fan of historical fiction.
Dave B

Delrick53 wrote:


I'm still enjoying 'Darwins Radio', but I wish I'd spotted the biology 101 and  glossary at the back earlier.

Ooops, forgot that  I did not find it until too late either! He had obviously not got round to that idea in 1985 for "Blood Music", but the jargon is not so profuse.

Rum do when you need such to understand a book, but worth it!
Delrick53

Lexilogio wrote:
I adore Sci fi.

And I'm a fan of religious based ones.
Walter Miller - Canticle for Leibowitz was wonderful, as was Doria Sparrows trilogy about the Jesuits involvement in being the first to visit another planet.

I'm always open to new sci fi recommendations. I enjoy fantasy, but not the battle ones. Three David Gemmel books are quite enough to enable me to probably write the rest (aged hero comes out of retirement for completely hopeless scenario.....)

I love hard sci fi, but find the writing often doesn't quite match up to the science.


Lexi,

I've found Millers 'Leibowitz' at Amazon, but not the Doria Sparrows trilogy.

Any ideas ?
Lexilogio

Delrick53 wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
I adore Sci fi.

And I'm a fan of religious based ones.
Walter Miller - Canticle for Leibowitz was wonderful, as was Doria Sparrows trilogy about the Jesuits involvement in being the first to visit another planet.

I'm always open to new sci fi recommendations. I enjoy fantasy, but not the battle ones. Three David Gemmel books are quite enough to enable me to probably write the rest (aged hero comes out of retirement for completely hopeless scenario.....)

I love hard sci fi, but find the writing often doesn't quite match up to the science.


I've found Millers 'Leibowitz' at Amazon, but not the Doria Sparrows trilogy.

Any ideas ?


My mistake - I got her name wrong. It's Mary Doria Russell, and the first book was, The Sparrow
Book 2 is Children of God

Maybe it was just two books? I had it in my head that it was a trilogy. They were brilliant though. Absolutely fascinating look at the way the Catholic Church may get involved in the future.
Delrick53

Thanks Lexi,

I'm not buying any more books until after Christmas, but I've made a note of them (I can get them both for £1.21 at Amazon).

The Jesuits have have a lot of bad (and justified) publicity, but they've also given a lot of Popes grief over the centuries, especially when they started talking about science and asking questions.
Delrick53

And it is two books, 12 years apart, and the price has dropped to under £1 for both.

I may be tempted !
Lexilogio

They are good reads, as straight sci fi, but also as a question as to how the church may get involved.

I have wondered if Dan Brown read them - but Doria Russell is a far better writer than he is.
Silver

Doesn't anyone do any light reading here? Or does everyone feel that they have to quote books they can brag about? Let me change that.


I downloaded and read World War Hulk over xmas. A series of Marvel Comics spread over 6 months where previously it had been decided that the Hulk is too dangerous to remain on Earth so has been exiled to an alien world, via a space ship. It is a fierce world where strength counts and he fights his way to the top of the pile and becomes king. Marries a queen, gets her pregnant and both are standing next to the space ship which brought him there when it explodes, wiping out everything within many miles, killing millions including his wife, but not the Hulk.

He returns to Earth in a huge space ship with fantastic technology and a group of alien fighters. His strength driven by rage as the TV show used to say, the Hulk now has a cold anger far in excess of anything he has known before, making him far more powerful than ever before, and his alter ego genius, Bruce Banner is equally in charge of the Hulk's mind, enabling him to overcome anything he faces.

Earth's forces are beaten, Earth's heroes follow and every plan against the Hulk fails. Manhattan has been evacuated and becomes a wasteland to be destroyed as the Hulk searches for the four men who sent him into space and destroyed all that he loved.
Lexilogio

People aren't bragging - this is genuinely what we read.

Although I would categorise Walter Miller and Doria Russell as light reading.

I've just finished reading Wintersong by Colin Harvey - which was a good book, although a bit OTT on the survival stuff. I'm now reading Virgils Aenid, Logicicomix by Apostolos Doxiades and Stolen by Lucy Christopher.
Samuel Vimes

I got given the latest Iain Banks book, Transition, for Christmas.
I'm looking forward to reading that.
Lexilogio

Samuel Vimes wrote:
I got given the latest Iain Banks book, Transition, for Christmas.
I'm looking forward to reading that.


I've listened to the Audiobook version - its very good
Shaker

It's only within the last couple of years that I've started to get into science fiction in a big way and I have a couple of Banks novels still on the ever-expanding to-read mountain, although I've read a couple of his non-sci-fi novels (The Crow Road and The Wasp Factory).
Lexilogio

admin. wrote:
It's only within the last couple of years that I've started to get into science fiction in a big way and I have a couple of Banks novels still on the ever-expanding to-read mountain, although I've read a couple of his non-sci-fi novels (The Crow Road and The Wasp Factory).


In which case I highly recommend Whit - it's about a cult!
krysta25uk

I love Stephen King and Shaun Hutson aswell as many thriller and fantasy writers.

Just ordered Greg Bear's Quantico.  This thread has made my reading list even longer.  Luckily I get most of mine from the library.

Read the Boudica series thought it was great. Tried the Sharpe series but couldn't get into it.

Keep coming with recoomendations as I have almost read everything in my library.
Judders Lady...

Silver wrote:
Doesn't anyone do any light reading here? Or does everyone feel that they have to quote books they can brag about? Let me change that.


Would you explain that Silver?

You see if you write about books and buy them because you think they somehow make you look more intelligent and so able to brag.
Then you show how fickle the sincerity and big the  falsehood of mans wisdom and lack of humility.

If you wanted to show yourself to be truly wise then they would tell people to read the bible regularly because none of these other books are going to show you the way to God or eternal life. The bible is the most important book you can read... It is clearly written by John the Apostle

30.And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31.But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.


The books being read and propagated on this forum is the usual fodder for those who believe they are bettering themselves so being given over to  the false idea that it makes them appear intelligent to others.  


But those who know about the hidden wisdom and are concerned with the truth  so know there is only one book the wise man really reads...
The Holy Bible. This is the book which God himself deems the most important book for any person to possess.
Through the course of history there has been no persons book read or published more than The Holy Bible it is Gods Truth, given to man as a beacon in this dark world.

Christ himself said,. " What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?"

Isaiah 28:14

14.Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

Isaiah 29:14

14.Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.


19.For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20.Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21.For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22.For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23.But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24.But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25.Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26.For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27.But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28.And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29.That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30.But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31.That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.


The believer knows that the wisdom of this world and it's vanity has been brought to nothing. For the wisdom of man is dead and brings nothing but it's own folly and belief in self.

Psalm 12:2-4.

2.They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.

3.The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:

4.Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?



Christ and Moses taught that man was not to live, sustain his life on food/bread alone. But that he was to sustain/live so have life in his soul by living by every word of God.
Do you think that mans wisdom is not allowed by God, even with it's folly?
Do you know why so many believers are lost through the wisdom of the world?

5.For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

9.Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10.And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11.And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12.That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

13.But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:


In Christ dwells the fullness of God and all truth.

The cross should confronts our intellectual pride and make our ears and hearts burn whilst closing our mouths.
The Word says, " If you have ears then listen to what the Spirit is teaching."
The wisdom of the cross is found in understanding the truth of it's so called foolishness.

Christ so rightly points out... "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me."

Not found in the wisdom of man or the intellectual pride of mankind.
Simply found in the so called ' foolish wisdom' of God.

Whatever their reasons Silver... If the World being -atheists like yourself is aware of it, then how much more is God and his people also aware of it?
The truth is that what you and I, think is irrelevant. But what God thinks is totally relevant for all. For he is the true Judge of all.

Love Lynne.xx
Dave B

I wish there was a puking emoticon.
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
If you wanted to show yourself to be truly wise then they would tell people to read the bible regularly because none of these other books are going to show you the way to God or eternal life.


I'm not really interested in childish egotistical dreams of immortality, I'd rather use my time to learn about lots of different things, here and now.  People who say that the bible is the best book they have ever read, really haven't read many books.
Judders Lady...

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
If you wanted to show yourself to be truly wise then they would tell people to read the bible regularly because none of these other books are going to show you the way to God or eternal life.


I'm not really interested in childish egotistical dreams of immortality, I'd rather use my time to learn about lots of different things, here and now.  People who say that the bible is the best book they have ever read, really haven't read many books.


I would not say the bible is the best book I have ever read.
I would say it was the most wealthy and beneficial of all books both spiritually and physically that I have ever read.
It really is all about our values in life.
How we value truth, God and other people.
To love others is the greatest wealth we can possess because people are all that truly matters in this world.
Without God, it would be impossible to do.

Love Lynne.xx
Judders Lady...

Dave B wrote:
I wish there was a puking emoticon.


God loves you Dave B and so do Jesus and I.

Love Lynne.xx    
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
Without God, it would be impossible to do.

Why?
Leonard James

Judders Lady... wrote:
To love others is the greatest wealth we can possess because people are all that truly matters in this world.
Without God, it would be impossible to do.

No, it isn't! I find it quite easy.
rick

I saw this thread and immediately thought of the "Is God a Teddy Bear?" thread.
I do get immense pleasure from laughing at some of the idiotic things some atheists write.

Lynne, I love you too. But who is this Jesus bloke not more competition in your harem?

   
Lexilogio

Dave B wrote:
I wish there was a puking emoticon.


Like this?

Farmer Geddon

Do you have one for rick and his verbal diarrhoea Lexi?    
rick

Evil Monkey wrote:
Do you have one for rick and his verbal diarrhoea Lexi?    


Someone give the monkey a banana...
He almost made a funny.
Farmer Geddon

Don't worry about it Lexi - we got one as a reply instead.....
northernstar

You praise the Bible, Lynne, tried to read it but gave up after the first page, talk about turgid!!
Farmer Geddon

Anyway rick, bananas are OK ---  but I prefer



Nuts

for pleasure....
Judders Lady...

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
Without God, it would be impossible to do.

Why?


Look up eros and agape love. There is only eros without God.

Love Lynne.xx
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
Look up eros and agape love. There is only eros without God.


Yes, I know about the various Greek words for love, but if you think that people who do not share your belief in God are incapable of anything other than sexual love then you are sanctimonious, patronising and ignorant.

As far as I can see, eros, agape and the various other kinds of love are all independent of belief in God.  Can you give any explanation as to why you feel otherwise, other than personal prejudice?
Judders Lady...

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
Look up eros and agape love. There is only eros without God.


Yes, I know about the various Greek words for love, but if you think that people who do not share your belief in God are incapable of anything other than sexual love then you are sanctimonious, patronising and ignorant.

As far as I can see, eros, agape and the various other kinds of love are all independent of belief in God.  Can you give any explanation as to why you feel otherwise, other than personal prejudice?


The true definition of both clearly shows how much you are in error.
When you have learned the true definition then you can come back and apologise.

Love Lynne.xx
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
The true definition of both clearly shows how much you are in error.


Do you mean the definition of eros and agape as the ancient Greeks who made up the words used them, or as sanctimonious, patronising and ignorant born-again basket-cases choose to use them these days?

I know both, but I think the older ones are more correct.  Let me guess, is etymology yet another area where you feel able to redefine The Truth ™ by virtue of your special relationship with the divine?
Judders Lady...

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
The true definition of both clearly shows how much you are in error.


Do you mean the definition of eros and agape as the ancient Greeks who made up the words used them, or as sanctimonious, patronising and ignorant born-again basket-cases choose to use them these days?

I know both, but I think the older ones are more correct.  Let me guess, is etymology yet another area where you feel able to redefine The Truth ™ by virtue of your special relationship with the divine?


You are wrong since Agape is not really used in prebiblical greek.
Try again...



Try using the words in Hebrew and note that the NT  mainly used two Greek words for love when there was several they could have used.
Why do you think that those in Spirit who heard the Spirit speak in Acts 2 didn't require an interpreter?

Seems that you think you have the answers but you only have part answers.

Love Lynne.xx

Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
You are wrong since Agape is not really used in prebiblical greek.


It does appear in several forms in pre-biblical texts, including Plato and the Odyssey.  It's meaning changed under Christianity to become something like self-sacrificing compassionate love for humanity, but I still think that is independent from God.  Do you have any reason to suppose that without God that kind of love is impossible?

Quote:
Why do you think that those in Spirit who heard the Spirit speak in Acts 2 didn't require an interpreter?


Because it's a story?
Judders Lady...

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
You are wrong since Agape is not really used in prebiblical greek.


It does appear in several forms in pre-biblical texts, including Plato and the Odyssey.  It's meaning changed under Christianity to become something like self-sacrificing compassionate love for humanity, but I still think that is independent from God.  Do you have any reason to suppose that without God that kind of love is impossible?

Quote:
Why do you think that those in Spirit who heard the Spirit speak in Acts 2 didn't require an interpreter?


Because it's a story?


I think you should check as agapeo/noun agape  it is not prominently used in prebiblical text. The verb Phileo is the second word mostly used in the NT but it is also the most common word used for love in prebiblical
Greek.

I think the fact the agape also referred to meal means that the use of the word cannot be discounted from any definition of love.

Love Lynne.xx
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
agapeo/noun agape  it is not prominently used in prebiblical text.


This is true, but it is not what you originally said.
Dave B

Judders Lady... wrote:
Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
Without God, it would be impossible to do.

Why?


Look up eros and agape love. There is only eros without God.

Love Lynne.xx

True, Judders Lady, the dictionary does define agape as "Christian love" as opposed to "erotic love or simple affection". Try telling a mother that what she feels for her child is simple affection! Try to explain to the truly devoted brother that he really wants to sleep with his sister!

"Eros" and "agape" are those sort of words that are used together in special ways, used by those who, often, have a narrow vision - bounded by theology for example. The average person in the street might love his/her dog, his/her nieces, nephews or grandchildren in a manner that has no sexual content at all, but pervades every cells of the body. I know.

They might even suffer an experience, so akin to love that I doubt that the medical profession could detect the difference, for a building, a tree, a painting, whatever.

Widen your horizons Judders.
Farmer Geddon

Ohhhhh dear - once again Lynne makes a cock-up and wont admit to it....

"Agape" is a Greek word used as a translation of a Hebrew word, but what is that Hebrew word and what does it mean in its original concept?

You know, for a self-proclaimed Jewess, you know bugger all about your "Bible"
Judders Lady...

Evil Monkey wrote:
Ohhhhh dear - once again Lynne makes a cock-up and wont admit to it....

"Agape" is a Greek word used as a translation of a Hebrew word, but what is that Hebrew word and what does it mean in its original concept?

You know, for a self-proclaimed Jewess, you know bugger all about your "Bible"


Quote:
You are wrong since Agape is not really used in prebiblical greek.

Seems you are the one in error.
I said 'NOT REALLY USED in prebiblical Greek.
I never said, "It wasn't used in prebiblical Greek"

How can I say " Not really used" in prebiblical Greek if it didn't exist in prebiblical Greek?

It just meant it was rarely used because as I later pointed out.
I had the knowledge that other words were prominently used in prebiblical Greek.

So Billy makes another Cock-Up and won't admit it...
As for being Jewish descent, and knowing the bible.
I can say I know Gods version of the bible from his own mouth.
Whilst you rely on the many different explanations of men, some born in your own life time. Oh and where did they get their explanations from?
Don't tell me... they studied what other men has told them.
Theories not always in line and truths not always reflective or provable by the Bibles way of truth.
What did Peter say about the OT scripture.
"It was not the work of any man but rather it was Gods Holy Spirit who inspired Holy Men of God to write what they did."

I understand even the easy truths of the bible. You see only what is written about the bible. I see what is being said within it.
I think you know bugger all about the bible when we use the true mark of how Peter claims it was given to man. Seeing you are not Jewish and are not one of those Holy Men, then is still puts the odds in favour of me being correct and you being wrong.

Now who really made the cock-up this morning. Not the one you first thought or would have liked to have made it.  
I am guessing.

Love Lynne.xx  
Lexilogio

The Greek words relating to αγάπη, has in use since the Odyssey. Two derivations appear in that text, and it is used widely in Plato. It's largely used as parenteral love, a brotherly love, a love without sexual connotation.

It was used as a translation for an older Hebrew word in the Bible.
I'm afraid I have no knowledge or understanding of the lexical usage of this word, and so the original intent of meaning of the author, beyond the Septugaint translation.
Farmer Geddon

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, and yet wrong again Lynne.

Why not just admit to making a fundamental error instead of burbling reams of irrelevance in a blustering attempt to cover your ignorance?
Farmer Geddon

Ok Lynne

Let me tell you where your supposition is flawed.

First of all "Eros" (erotic) is not mentioned in the Koine NT - or is it?

The two protagonists for love in the Greek version of the texts are "Agape" and "Philia" - so your insistence about Erotica is irrelevant.

Will that do for starters?
rick

Evil Monkey wrote:
Ok Lynne

Let me tell you where your supposition is flawed.

First of all "Eros" (erotic) is not mentioned in the Koine NT - or is it?

The two protagonists for love in the Greek version of the texts are "Agape" and "Philia" - so your insistence about Erotica is irrelevant.

Will that do for starters?


Evil Monkey, did you read any of her posts?  
jeremyp

In answer to the question "what do atheists read for pleasure?" I'd say "not this thread".
Lexilogio

jeremyp wrote:
In answer to the question "what do atheists read for pleasure?" I'd say "not this thread".


You should see the argument that ensued when some of us discussed Dostoyevsky. Apparently we were playing with the devil.  
Ketty

jeremyp wrote:
In answer to the question "what do atheists read for pleasure?" I'd say "not this thread".


 

I think that applies to anyone, not just atheists.  
Judders Lady...

Lexilogio wrote:
jeremyp wrote:
In answer to the question "what do atheists read for pleasure?" I'd say "not this thread".


You should see the argument that ensued when some of us discussed Dostoyevsky. Apparently we were playing with the devil.  


Now the way the thread actually read. It suggested that Dostoyevsky
was actually not in agreement with scripture and Bev had not realised the implication when she first posted the thread. She thought it to be saying something different, and was posting it for a different reason.

I guess you read the thread as you did the first three books of the bible and put your own interpretation on it, rather than what the contents showed God to say about the first three books of the bible.(remember there was two threads which raised the matter about Dostoyevsky.
The latter one could have been started by you and referring to the last one by Bev).
God,clearly tells Moses to write down what he saying.
God says," his words are true and they must be obeyed".


But according to Lexi...

"God did not intend the first three books to be read as literal truth."
They contain only myths and I do not believe God did not intend them to be taken as truth."



God help us when you have finished learning Greek.

I wonder if you will then realise that Gods Holy Spirit when speaking through people to different races, is powerful enough to allow them to hear him in their own tongues.
Could you imagine the Apostles having to learn Greek and every other language to enable all to hear their message.
 

Getting the bigger picture. If you cannot understand the truth in English, then learning Greek won't make the bible any clearer.
The so called 'foolish wisdom' isn't found in the wisdom of man.
It will not give you the knowledge and teaching of the Word which only Gods Holy Spirit can.  What was it Paul said?
Take the Sword which the is the Word of God which  the Spirit  gives.
You know why the Sword is the only weapon in what is called the armour?
All the other peices of armour protect you they help you remain in the truth. But the Sword is the true weapon it is the Word of God which the Spirit gives. Without the Spirit, you have no Truth to defend and no armour will protect the truth you think you possess.
Because the true word of God is given only by the Holy Spirit to mankind.
Scripture confirmed the same by Peter and Jesus Christ.

You cannot bear being corrected and so use allsorts of false insults and attacks against others. But if you mock the Lords Servant then expect what the word promises you will get.

Isaiah 54:17 (King James Version)

17.No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.



Your words make God a laughing stock. Because they the atheist see how willingly you betray the will of God to 'love your neighbour' and therefore to 'Love God' by constantly trying to belittle or dig those who speak out for the truth of Gods word with your constant misunderstanding or deliberate wrong comprehension of it.

The threads may have disappeared or even had things removed from them. But Gods memory is not short and as we see from Ananias and Sapphira the Spirit can tell people things no ear or eye has witnessed.
Be careful,  the time lessens to you losing what bit of faith you do have if you carry on in your ignorant attacks of the truth and Gods people.

Love Lynne.xx


Lexilogio

 

I do believe the point was that one mention of Dostoyevsky, and you felt the need to launch into a tirade.

Point made I believe.



http://nglreturns.myfreeforum.org/ftopic1420-0-asc-0.php
 
Farmer Geddon

Ohhhhhh... Ohhhhhhhhh .. Ohhhhhhh... Ohhhhhhhhh

Classic - instead of addressing the point, create an irrelevant one..

Law, unto, ones, self comes to mind...

       
Farmer Geddon

Prick wrote:
Evil Monkey, did you read any of her posts?  


     

Do you?


I seriously doubt it...

   
Lexilogio

What do you reckon.

Cue Rick? Macca? Or do we get the rarer Sam Harris?

Or all three?
Farmer Geddon

Ohhh I give up Lexi - baith the tree o'em wil mac us much sense ais t'ether..

Or will it all be Greek to them?

Pukon_the_Treen

Farmer Geddon

Like that one PtT....

 
Judders Lady...

Lexilogio wrote:
 

I do believe the point was that one mention of Dostoyevsky, and you felt the need to launch into a tirade.

Point made I believe.



http://nglreturns.myfreeforum.org/ftopic1420-0-asc-0.php
 


You are deceiving yourself and the truth is not in you.
There is nothing you have written that makes any point. It does show that  you know nothing when it comes to the teachings of God  himself about his truth.
That is the way it will stay till you learn that love is an action and you cannot have any truth till you can obey the main teachings of Christ.

Your posts are worldly and like unto atheist wums.
If that is what you call a point and proven then you are right.
You have proved that you have no love of truth or God.
That you seek only to try and prove yourself to the world.
The world will only accept those who do as they do.




Love Lynne.xx
Leonard James

Morning Lynne,

Having read your last post, and realised that the 'truth is in you', I think you should have your message from God added to those of the other scripture writers. You could call it 'The Book of Lynne', or even 'The Gospel according to St. Lynne'.

There will obviously be difficulty in getting the consent of other Christian leaders, but I'm sure God will move their hearts to accept his/your truth.
Lexilogio

Oh - we are back to the old - You are not a Christian response.

Must be a vinyl record. It's stuck again.
Farmer Geddon










A little chrimbo present to myself...

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum